PDA

View Full Version : The chilean question.



Panzerknacker
05-02-2007, 06:42 PM
All about the help to UK provide by Chile, and his consecuenses in the development of the war.

Panzerknacker
05-02-2007, 08:41 PM
Part 1:

the Chilean connection

http://www.clarin.com/diario/2005/07/04/thumb/t014dh10.jpg

Since the end of theWar in 1982 there has been considerable speculation about the support and facilities provided by Chile to the UK. The recent publication of ‘The Official History of the Falklands Campaign’ by Sir Lawrence Freedman has at last shed fresh light of what actually happened.

When the War broke out, Chile still had a long-standing dispute with Argentina over access to the Beagle Channel, making the chance of military co-operation between Britain and Chile a distinct possibility.

However, considerable misgivings about any such co-operation existed on both sides – Chile was wary of being seen to support an ‘old-world’ power in a dispute against its neighbour and Britain viewed the many human rights abuses in Chile with evident distaste. Nevertheless, despite the problems identified by both sides, needs must -as is so often the case in times of crisis.

The exact details of what co-operation was agreed between the two countries remains unclear, but it was always to be covert.


Chilean bases offered UK forces the only realistic chances they had of decent facilities within reasonable reach of both Argentina and the Falklands Islands. Chilean good intentions were clear when the offered to delay the handover of HMS Norfolk which had been sold to the Chilean Navy on 6 Apr 82. The age and equipment on board this old warship was of little real benefit to the Task Force, however, they also offered to delay the handover of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Tanker, HMS Tidepool, which was of far more use. This vessel refuelled at Curacao and on 14 Apr 82 sailed to join the Task Force before playing a vital role in the re-capture of South Georgia.


Recognising how little direct support the Royal Air Force could give to the Task Force, UK MOD were very keen to base Nimrod Maritime Patrol Aircraft (MPA) in southern Chile where they could be used to locate and identify Argentinean warships. Its unclear from the official history whether the UK MOD also intended to also deploy a Nimrod R1 ELINT aircraft to southern Chile as part of this arrangement, but the similarity of the two aircraft would help disguise the presence of the R1, whilst enabling the aircraft to eavesdrop on Argentinean communications, as well as identifying the location of radars and other electronic transmissions.


To encourage Chilean co-operation, Britain was prepared to offer to sell to Chile a number of Hunter aircraft that they have previously expressed an interest in acquiring. The Chilean authorities, were slowly warming to the idea of Nimrod aircraft operating from one of their air bases, however, to ensure the operation remained covert, they preferred that the aircraft operate from the island of San Felix, some 1,900 miles from the likely area of operations, rather than directly from an airbase in southern Chile. Nevertheless, doubts still remained and the British Ambassador in Chile warned that if RAF aircraft flew into Argentinean airspace from Chile ‘short term military benefits will be outweighed by long-term political consequences’.

Panzerknacker
05-02-2007, 09:12 PM
part 2

As well as the Hunter fighter aircraft, Chile had also previously expressed an interest in purchasing a number of Canberra PR9 reconnaissance aircraft, although they had already rejected three refurbished Canberra PR9s for being too expensive.

Even before the Falklands War broke out, the RAF had offered to lend the Chilean Air Force, the Fuerza Aerea De Chile (FACH), some of their own Canberra PR9s to conduct a land survey over Chile. As this offer still stood, a proposal was made to the Chilean authorities that two Canberra PR9s would be sold to Chile, at probably half the previously quoted price, and delivered by RAF crews. In Chile the RAF crews would train the FACH crews to fly the Canberra PR9, whilst carrying out ‘training’ photographic reconnaissance sorties from an air base in southern Chile. Exactly where these ‘photographic reconnaissance sorties’ would take place is not specified, but it is believed that they would have targeted the Falklands Islands, to provide information on the disposition of Argentinean forces, in advance of a landing. This proposal got as far as the Canberra crews being selected and put on standby to move, before it was cancelled by Chile because they believed the aircraft would be identified and probably shot down.



Nevertheless, the Chilean authorities were still keen to acquire the two Canberra PR9s and after further negotiations it was agreed on 16 Apr 82 that they would be sent to Chile on loan, trial or for purchase, accompanied by two supporting C-130 Hercules, all in Chilean markings. Although the Chilean authorities had no intention of purchasing any Nimrod aircraft, they also agreed that Nimrod’s would be permitted to fly anywhere in Chilean airspace on transit and would even be permitted to land in an emergency. Chile also agreed to supply the UK with details of any Argentinean surface movements they acquired. It was recommended that the two Canberra’s and two C-130’s depart for Belize as a matter of urgency, to pre-position for the journey to Chile. The four aircraft soon arrived in Belize and on 26 Apr 82 the two C-130s, disguised in Chilean markings applied in Belize, arrived in Santiago – the Canberra’s were expected to arrive just after dawn on 30 Apr 82.

http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/5080/25057646wl0.jpg

However, for a variety of political reasons, Chile suddenly began to get cold feet and warned Britain that, if the Canberra PR9 operations were detected by Argentina or the Press, the Canberra detachment of 18 officers and 24 SNCOs who had arrived on one of the supporting C-130s would be required to leave Chile immediately.

Panzerknacker
07-22-2007, 05:28 PM
"US support to UK in Falklands´ war was decisive"

The Chilean military Junta support to Britain during the 1982 conflict "was important, but did no influence the outcome of the war; United States support to Britain was decisive", remarked former Argentine Army Commander General Martin Balza interviewed by the Chilean media.General Balza´s remarks follow the disclosure this week of Chilean involvement in the Falklands conflict by a former member of the Chilean Junta and former Air Force commander Fernando Matthei.

According to General Matthei Chilean support included military intelligence gathering, radar surveillance, RAF aircrafts operating with Chilean colours and even safe return of British commandos who landed near Punta Arenas, among other things.

"I did everything possible to make Argentina loose the Malvinas war",confessed General Matthei.

General Balza who was then a Lieutenant Colonel and head of an artillery group fighting in the Falklands said the Argentines had hooked into the Chilean communications system and were well aware of the early warning system of the British, delivered by the Chileans, every time Argentine bombers took off for the Islands.
"General Matthei´s revelations were pragmatic, sincere and realistic, but not surprising.

In a book I wrote on the war I enumerate the support received by Britain during that absurd event, which was the South Atlantic conflict", said General Balza.

Working on information from Chilean and British sources, General Balza in his book described the UK-Chile collaboration as a "secret pact".
"But when I say Chile, I´m not referring to the Chilean people, but to the government of the time", he underlines.
General Balza stresses his respect and love for the Chilean people, and the Chilean people´s friendship towards Argentina, "which was never affected by the decisions from the military government headed by Pinochet; on the contrary I believe General Matthei´s revelations consolidate the historical truth about the war, with great respect and sincerity".
As to Chilean support to the British war effort, "it was important in several areas, early warning when Argentine bombers took off the British had been alerted by the Chileans, and the British vessels and land forces were ready. British Canberra bombers operated with Chilean colours and were donated to Chile after the conflict, but in my opinion, it did not influence the outcome of the war. The decisive support was from the United States to Britain".
General Balza was then asked about General Fortunato Galtieri´s remarks, then head of the Argentine Junta, who said the Malvinas war was the "beginning of the recovery of Argentine territory", implicitly referring to areas under dispute with Chile.
"I don´t like to speak about Galtieri who as member of the Junta led us into an absurd war and played with the Argentine people´s sentiments. Malvinas is a cohesive call for the Argentine people", replied the General.
"Unfortunately the Argentine military dictatorship playing on that feeling used it for a bastard purpose which was, if successful, to consolidate the dictatorship. That´s why it was a just cause in bastard hands. Those of us who fought in Malvinas, fought not for Galtieri, but for a feeling. It was an absurd war for which we were not prepared".
General Balza who together with 500 other Argentine officers was made prisoner of war by the British following the cease fire in June 1982 said that "as a war veteran, the war was very painful, regrettable and a vexation from the Argentine military Junta.
Paradoxically the Chilean and Argentine dictatorships were linked by the unfortunate Plan Condor". (The combined repressive operation by military dictatorships of the Southern Cone which at the time pooled resources and information to pursue, capture, torture and kill opponents, dissenters, suspects as well as exchange prisoners)
General Balza was then asked about some previous remarks arguing that in a conventional war scenario with Chile, Argentina would have been defeated.
"As a professional military officer I can say Argentina was not prepared for any conventional conflict at the time. Argentina was facing an internal conflict and in a war situation she would be considered the aggressor and in no way could have won".
"Nobody wins in a war. A war between neighbouring countries with a common future would have been an adventure, but that all belongs to the past. As a common citizen I can say that in the Malvinas cause we have the full support of the democratic government of Chile, of the Chilean people in our legitimate claim over the Islands which have to be pursued diplomatically".
General Balza said he was grateful to God and the Pope´s intervention, and for the strong feelings of the Chilean and Argentine peoples, "who avoided an absurd confrontation in 1978".

Finally General Balza underlined that any misunderstanding arising from recent revelations about the Falklands war have had no impact at all in bilateral relations.

He remarked that "the Chilean and Argentine peoples are above any regrettable statements, and we must not forget that former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher when Pinochet was arrested in London in 1998 defended him arguing Chile had granted very valuable assistance during the war". "Thatcher confessed that 255 British servicemen lives were lost in the Malvinas war, but without Chilean assistance they could have been far more, so this clearly is evidence of that support. But it was given by the Chilean dictatorship, not by the Chilean people?"

http://www.falkland-malvinas.com/vernoticia.do?id=6371&formato=HTML

Lone Ranger
07-22-2007, 06:08 PM
The dispute with Chile over the Beagle Channel. Was this the dispute where Chile and Argentina went to the International Court of Justice in Den Haag, where when Argentina lost it refused to accept the verdict?

Panzerknacker
07-23-2007, 08:18 AM
True, the traced borded line didnt ( and doesnt) follow the trace of the province of Tierra del fuego and get "inside" the Argentine territory.

The islas down south are desertic, but strategically important.

http://www.larc1.com/cruises/mare-australis/images/patagonia-map-(256-colors)-b700w.gif



The chilean navy fixed some bases there.

1000ydstare
07-23-2007, 02:29 PM
The Argientinians seem to have a lot of disputes over territory.

The Chileans must have provided a lot of support to the British. I often wonder what carrot was dangled for that support.

Does anyone actually live on fuego, apart from the bases?

Lone Ranger
07-23-2007, 02:48 PM
And the Argentines usually seem to be on the losing side when the case goes to mediation by an independent mediator. The dispute with Chile went against them and they refused to accept it. Instead they relied on their superior military forces to hang on to territory that knew didn't belong to them. It does go some way to explaining why Chile supported Britain.

Did you know by the way that Britain offered to go to the ICJ in 1945, 1948 and 1955? Argentina refused mediation on those occasions.

Gun Plumber
07-23-2007, 04:38 PM
All about the help to UK provide by Chile, and his consecuenses in the development of the war.

Text deleted. Baiting posts are frowned upon here.

Cheers

FF

Lone Ranger
07-23-2007, 05:01 PM
There is no need for that sort of infantile name calling. Please grow up.

Firefly
07-23-2007, 05:16 PM
There is no need for that sort of infantile name calling. Please grow up.

You are right. I have deleted the offending text and re-iterate that this kind of baiting will only result in the whole section being viewed as more and more useless to what is essentially a ww2 site.

If you cant be adult Mr Plumber then dont post in here.

Cheers...

Panzerknacker
07-23-2007, 06:20 PM
Hmmm, I wonder what wrote Gun plumber. :rolleyes:


I often wonder what carrot was dangled for that support.

Military equipment and some kind of political support for Pinochet goverment.

In here Mrs Tatcher explained well, what a nasty couple.

http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=milMu-0tpW8

Chile give instead precise ELINT info and other about the time of take off of the fighter-bomber of San Julian and other patagonic bases.




Does anyone actually live on fuego, apart from the bases?


Few people in the Chilean side, 200,000 people in the Argentine side.

Just put "Ushuaia" in google images and it give you a lot of pictures of the capital city.

Rising Sun*
07-23-2007, 07:19 PM
The islas down south are desertic, but strategically important.

Why?

Just against Chile, or other nations?

Panzerknacker
07-23-2007, 07:27 PM
Against Chile and also a good naval-air bases for controling the Drake pass and the Magellan strait.

Not to mention the usefulness against the British military in the Malvinas. :rolleyes:

By the way when I say "islands down south " I am refering to the south of the Beagle channel, not Tierra del Fuego itself, the province have severals woodlands, in the centre-north.

Eagle
07-23-2007, 07:29 PM
I note a little anger by certain members, and I don't understand it.


The Argientinians seem to have a lot of disputes over territory.

Absolutely not. Only with Chile (former disputes, in the past not today) and the United Kingdom.
In the first case was because the difficulty of obtain an exact and just limit over 4.4 thousand kilometers, all over a high mountains chain, and the difficulties off raising at the same time, both nations, over a hughe non-corrupted territory as the Patagonia is. Really difficult to make an agree, but fortunately that was reached. Some territories were for Argentina, som territories were for Chile.
And in the second case, for a simple imperialism and expansionism act, from a potency that stoled part of our territories. Nothing more to aid.
Really good to a country with 7500km of borders with five different countries, to have only two territory conflicts. In the case of the United Kingdom, it hasn't got any border (only 250km in Ireland), and we will find a huge quantity of territory conflicts over the world, supported by its imperialism ideals



And the Argentines usually seem to be on the losing side when the case goes to mediation by an independent mediator

Humm, as I see you don't know a lot of history about Argentina or Chile... I comment you that if you go to Chile you'll here a lot of them claiming that Argentina stoled a lot of Chilean territories and mantains them, for instance the entire patagonia, the territories of desert lake, continental ices... Those territories (which was a mediator, as OEA) stayed at the Argentine side, although the Chileans claimed them strongly (at the point of it was a battle between Argentine and Chilean security forces in Desert Lake).
So, after more than a century of disputes, is common that Argentines and Chileans would think that the other stoled some part of its own territory, after a century of comings and goings.
But is easy to mistake, as you did champion, because the only case that was mentioned in the world was the Beagle islands topic, which was declared as the Chilean side. Please in your next post try to write with more information to support what you are defending.

Regards.

1000ydstare
07-24-2007, 12:09 AM
Panzerknacker, I wouldn't describe the Iron Lady as "Nasty".

At elast she didn't start a dirty war in her own country, or stage acts of aggression on other countries like some world leaders during her time of leadership.

Panzerknacker
07-24-2007, 09:55 AM
True, but she supported Pinochet who did everything describe by you above.

Even more Pinochet killed a democratic elected president, the Argentine Military just send Isabel Peron to the exile.


Double moral isnt ? ;) Or perhaps no moral at all.

Lone Ranger
07-24-2007, 10:00 AM
not. Only with Chile (former disputes, in the past not today) and the United Kingdom.

And with Uruguary...you forgot that one.


Some territories were for Argentina, som territories were for Chile.

Mmm, I note that you miss the point that when Chile won the case at the ICJ, Argentine refused to accept it. Not near as amicable as you claim and goes a long way to explaining Chile's attitude.


And in the second case, for a simple imperialism and expansionism act, from a potency that stoled part of our territories.

Mmm, very rich coming from a nation that exists because of Spanish Imperialism expelling the indiginous population. The history of the Falklands dispute is interesting and the Argentine case is not as strong as you believe it to be. But do go on.


Humm, as I see you don't know a lot of history about Argentina or Chile...

Actually I know a great deal more than you realise.


So, after more than a century of disputes, is common that Argentines and Chileans would think that the other stoled some part of its own territory, after a century of comings and goings.

And the Falklands Islands had many comings and goings. C'est la vie.

1000ydstare
07-24-2007, 01:29 PM
No moral.

Prove she knew what was going on?

The Junta did, but you can't prove that Thatcher knew.

Eagle
07-24-2007, 05:57 PM
And with Uruguary...you forgot that one.

I am sorry? Which territory dispute with Uruguay? Although Uruguay was an Argentine province (named as Oriental Band) it obtained its independence en the 1820s after the Argentine-Brazilian war, won by Argentina, and after the sentence of independece, never claimed that territory as own, till this day.
The conflict that Argentina and Uruguay have, is by an installation of European factories next to the Uruguay River, natural limit between both countries, and exists a serious risk of heavy contamination of the shared river. But territory conflicts? Absolutely not.



Mmm, I note that you miss the point that when Chile won the case at the ICJ, Argentine refused to accept it. Not near as amicable as you claim and goes a long way to explaining Chile's attitude.

Probably, but remember the government that didn't accept that sentence was a beligerant non-constitutonall country. Fortunately with the time Argentine democratic governments recognized the Beagle islands as Chilean... With the time Argentina recognized the mistakes from others administrations and repared them, really nice from our governments. I don't want to mix everything, buyt not always the world states recognize their own mistakes, and repair them. In my first stage in this forum I heard several times "Probably the invasion of 1833 was wrong..." So, you recognize your mistakes, but what do you do to restore them?

Lone Ranger
07-25-2007, 08:49 AM
Actually the problem I have with the 1833 take over is that it wasn't by any stretch of the imagination an invasion. After politely objecting to Argentine claims over the Falklands in 1820, 1825 and 1829, after giving permission for Vernet's expeditions in 1826 and 1828, the British Government asserted sovereignty by turning up and asking the Argentine commander very politely to remove the Argentine flag.

In addition, the Argentine Government claims that they repatriated the settlers. Except that they didn't, the settlers remained on the Islands. One of Vernet's emloyees William ****son was appointed the first Governor.

Also, the Argentine Government claim that they wouldn't permit Argentines to own property and businesses on the Island. This is also bollocks, Vernet was allowed to continue his enterprise under the British Admin. It only fell apart thanks to one Antonio Rivero.

Now Gaucho Rivero is an interesting one. In Argentina he's a folk hero for gallantly resisting the British following the 1833 return. In actual fact, he murdered 5 Argentine colonists because he had a problem with the way Vernet paid his wages in his own currency that he then later devalued.

Moving onto more recent times. The tone of the start of this thread is hostile to Chile for helping the British. However, given the bullying attitude that Argentina had displayed toward Chile in the past it is perfectly understandable.

The dispute with Uruguay is an attempt to control what they do on their side of the border. Again they consulted with Argentina first, finding no objections they proceeded, then Argentina changes its mind and launches all sort of economic sanctions to force them to heal. Once again trying to get its own way by bullying.

Ignoring the fact that most of the Argentine claim for sovereignty is based on the papal bull, and is just that, bull. The islands have developed a completely separate and distinct identity over nearly 2 centuries, they do not want to be part of Argentina and any hope you had of sovereignty was blown when your military stomped all over their lives in 1982. Your Governments petty actions since have done nothing to ingratiate it with the Islanders and is just driving them further and further away.

All of these problems are the result of your countries actions but Argentina never accepts responsibility for the fact it was in the wrong. You teach a bizarre sort of history that distorts the facts to perpetually portray Argentina as the victim of perfidious Albion.

Grow up and accept responsibility, your country invaded in 1982, it sparked a senseless, useless war that wasted many lives.

1000ydstare
07-25-2007, 11:46 AM
Panzerknacker, I posted words to the effect that you seem to be unable to come to terms with the fact that argentina lost the Falklands war and your constant whining about it was boring.

I wish I could say it was untrue.

It appears many Argentines (not just those on this site) are of the opinion that if htey lost, then the British must be guilty of some how cheating or (in extremis) war crimes.

Bizarre behaviour. I used to say it machimso, especially with Irish Duck and Arkantos.

Panzerknacker
07-25-2007, 12:20 PM
LR there is no territorial problem with Uruguay. :rolleyes:

The natural border with is Chile is the Andes, They take the skinny part ( and I mean skinny) we took the fat part, well bad luck for them but that is history.

The border question with this country is already solved. There still some items to be defined but those are trivial things an non territorial related.

And yet one more link.





Chile 'helped UK over Falklands'

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39307000/jpg/_39307949_203falklandtroops.jpg
British troops raise the flag on the Falklands during the conflict

A forthcoming book has revealed Chile's military intelligence helped Britain during the 1982 Falklands conflict.

The book has threatened a possible diplomatic row between Chile and Argentina over the revelations of a secret alliance with the UK.
Chilean president Ricardo Lagos has forwarded parts of the book to the Argentine foreign ministry.
The book alleges Chile provided intelligence in return for half-price military aircraft.

'Cut-price deal'

The book, The Official History of the Falklands War, details the deal between the governments of Margaret Thatcher and General Augusto Pinochet, said the BBC's Chilean correspondent Clinton Porteous.
Extracts from it claim "the Chilean military provided key information on the movement of Argentine forces and other assistance, and in return were offered a cut-price deal on the purchase of military aircraft".
Mr Lagos said he received a letter and extracts of the book from British Prime Minister Tony Blair. He replied to Mr Blair and forwarded the extracts to the Argentines.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39980000/jpg/_39980925_falklands203.jpg

The Falklands were invaded by Argentina in 1982


Chile was officially neutral during the conflict, but the book claims it considered a border offensive against Argentina to draw military forces away from The Falklands.
Argentina and Chile both had military governments at the time and were "close to war", the BBC correspondent said.
The alliance between the UK and Chile remained secret, he said, because the Thatcher government did not want to be publicly associated with a military government known for human rights abuses. After leaving office, however, Mrs Thatcher admitted General Pinochet had helped save many British lives during the conflict. The operation to re-take the Falklands, which came after Argentina invaded in April 1982, cost 255 British and 655 Argentine lives.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4622565.stm


The most funny part ( and with this I always made hungry the Pinochet supporters :twisted: ) is the despite all the efforst of the Chilean dictatorship to help Britain and defeat Argentina he was put in house arrest the fist time he put the foot in U.K.

And the ironic part is the todays Chile depend in Argentine Oil/gas to survive the intense winters.

Isnt this lovely ?



No moral.

Prove she knew what was going on?

The Junta did, but you can't prove that Thatcher knew

There was no need of a tremendous amount of brains to realize that the human Rights were violated repeatly in those days in Argentina and Chile, Chile being by far more outspoken with that and also more public, some people was shot in the National Stadium of Santiago...so, you figure.

1000ydstare
07-25-2007, 12:48 PM
Oil and Gas cause a fair few wars if not properly managed.

If Chile rely on you for these items, it is not neccesarily a good thing.

Lone Ranger
07-25-2007, 03:16 PM
LR there is no territorial problem with Uruguay. :rolleyes:

Ignoring the point as usual. La plus ca change....


The border question with this country is already solved.

It wasn't in 1982, it wasn't until 1984 if memory serves me correct. It was also the case that Argentina had a habit of massing troops on the border in a threatening posture.

But carry on ignoring the reasons why Chile supported the UK.

EDIT

Whilst I remember, there was also the implicit threat made by Galtieri that after the Falklands, Chile was next.

Panzerknacker
07-25-2007, 06:39 PM
No, no no, I dont ignore the reasons, I am very aware of that.
And wasnt 1984 but much later since the definitive agreements were signed in the 1990s.

My point is some people have understimated the Chilean support to the British war effort, and/or they attemp to forgive/forget the behavior of Chile in those days.

But I dont, they are not my brothers as somebody want to make believe.


Oil and Gas cause a fair few wars if not properly managed.

If Chile rely on you for these items, it is not neccesarily a good thing.

100 % agreed, maybe is not good for Chile but is very amusing to see how the situation has changed, at list from the Argentine point of view.
If they misbehave Argentina will close the tap. :cool:

Lone Ranger
07-26-2007, 05:13 AM
But I dont, they are not my brothers as somebody want to make believe.

An eye for an eye just leaves everyone blind. You live in the past and you repeat the mistakes of the past.

Panzerknacker
07-26-2007, 08:14 AM
I never claimed to be the nicest guy around. ;)

1000ydstare
07-26-2007, 11:09 AM
If they misbehave Argentina will close the tap.

And Chile does what?

Lone Ranger
07-26-2007, 11:27 AM
And Chile does what?

Interesting that the first thought was to invoke strong arm tactics...sums it all up nicely really.

Panzerknacker
07-26-2007, 06:23 PM
And Chile does what?

My guessing is that they would need to find an alternative way of supply. More expensive than the Argentine one.

1000ydstare
07-27-2007, 12:25 PM
HA HAHAA AHAHAHAHAHAH HAHAHAHA H HAHAHAH A

No wait, no, no, no

HAHAHAHAHAHAH HAHAHAHAHA HAHA

Or they just roll in to your country and take it?

Religion and resources, THE two biggest contributers to start wars. Greater than even politics and rivalry.

You turn off the tap to Chile, they may invade, and bring a few friends. After all you turn the tap on one country, you may do it to others.

Gen. Sandworm
07-27-2007, 12:52 PM
HA HAHAA AHAHAHAHAHAH HAHAHAHA H HAHAHAH A

No wait, no, no, no

HAHAHAHAHAHAH HAHAHAHAHA HAHA


Not quite as funny........a simple ROTFLMAO would work. Your just wasting space on the server. Huh huh huh :twisted:

1000ydstare
07-28-2007, 12:56 AM
Roftflmao?

Panzerknacker
07-29-2007, 10:05 AM
The military option seems exagerated to me, but I must recognize that the Argentine armed forces arent much deterrance today for the Chilean forces.

1000ydstare
07-29-2007, 12:55 PM
I wouldn't say it was exagerated.

In the scenario Argentina cuts off resources to Chile.

They have three options

a. Enter dialougue to get the gas back on. (likely to have been exhausted prior to turn off).

b. Buy else where, probably more expensive and from further away thus possibly open to interference.

c. Threaten, then finally attack Argentina, take control of Gas and turn it on again. Then pay for it again or just take it.

Bear in mind this sort of thing was a major factor for the Japanese entering the second world war also.

Lone Ranger
07-29-2007, 04:50 PM
Rolling On The Floor Laughing My *** Off - ROTFLMAO

1000ydstare
07-30-2007, 11:07 AM
I wasn't though.

I was being sarcastic.

royal744
09-02-2013, 04:32 PM
I note a little anger by certain members, and I don't understand it.



Absolutely not. Only with Chile (former disputes, in the past not today) and the United Kingdom.
In the first case was because the difficulty of obtain an exact and just limit over 4.4 thousand kilometers, all over a high mountains chain, and the difficulties off raising at the same time, both nations, over a hughe non-corrupted territory as the Patagonia is. Really difficult to make an agree, but fortunately that was reached. Some territories were for Argentina, som territories were for Chile.
And in the second case, for a simple imperialism and expansionism act, from a potency that stoled part of our territories. Nothing more to aid.
Really good to a country with 7500km of borders with five different countries, to have only two territory conflicts. In the case of the United Kingdom, it hasn't got any border (only 250km in Ireland), and we will find a huge quantity of territory conflicts over the world, supported by its imperialism ideals




Humm, as I see you don't know a lot of history about Argentina or Chile... I comment you that if you go to Chile you'll here a lot of them claiming that Argentina stoled a lot of Chilean territories and mantains them, for instance the entire patagonia, the territories of desert lake, continental ices... Those territories (which was a mediator, as OEA) stayed at the Argentine side, although the Chileans claimed them strongly (at the point of it was a battle between Argentine and Chilean security forces in Desert Lake).
So, after more than a century of disputes, is common that Argentines and Chileans would think that the other stoled some part of its own territory, after a century of comings and goings.
But is easy to mistake, as you did champion, because the only case that was mentioned in the world was the Beagle islands topic, which was declared as the Chilean side. Please in your next post try to write with more information to support what you are defending.

Regards.

I guess, Eagle. We have a 3000 mile border with Canada that hasn't been in dispute in over 200 years and another with Mexico that hasn't been in dispute since about 1836, although Pancho Villa did make a raid into New Mexico around 1914. Neither Mexico nor the US had any desire for each others' territory - those days were over. Oh, and those two French islands in the St. Lawrence Seaway between the US and Canada that nobody is planning on invading anytime soon. After all, they belonged to France before there was a United States or an independent Dominion of Canada. There must be a lesson in here somewhere.

Nickdfresh
09-03-2013, 05:00 AM
You do realize you're responding to six year old posts?

royal744
09-05-2013, 01:25 PM
You do realize you're responding to six year old posts?

Nick, does the age of the post matter? There are so many threads on this site, that I simply haven't had the time to get to very many of them, although I am slowly working my way through them. There was a time when I left this site for many months - just too busy doing other things - before coming back to it. If I respond to a thread that is old, does that mean it never happened? LOL!